One of the hallmarks of the literature was the utility of subject specialization by liaisons. Pratt described [15] the development, implementation, and evaluation of a biotechnology library liaison program. He noted that “For the liaison, growth in subject knowledge has been key in the evolution from providing access to literature toward identifying information” [16]. Ryans et al. described successful liaison services in an academic library and suggested that “ideally, to provide these services, the library liaison should have a strong background in the subject area of the academic unit they serve” [17]. Grover and Hale, while not specifically referring to library liaisons, discussed the role of librarians in the faculty research process [18]. They indicated that, for librarians to be truly useful to researchers, and to be part of the researchers' “visible” college, librarians needed to “be able to anticipate the researcher's patterns” [19] and be able to “identify the leading paradigms in a discipline and relate them to campus researchers and their work” [20]. They noted that “Librarians and researchers must form partnerships in order to facilitate the research process,” and “librarians who are familiar with the leading paradigms within disciplines can work more effectively with faculty researchers” [21]. What better way is there to raise awareness than through liaison subject specialization and concentration and advocacy for a particular finite domain-related group of patrons?

The email responses from pre-program liaisons gave the work group insights into the diversity of needs of the particular colleges, as well as their colleges' different levels of ability and willingness to work with liaisons. For example, the faculty from one college were unable to communicate with the library email system. Another college refused to allow a librarian access to its email distribution lists; email had to be sent to one college administrator to be passed along. A third college, although very interested in having library orientations for its doctoral students, would not relinquish time in the curriculum to have these sessions. It became clear that prescribed liaison activities would need to be kept to a minimum in the final plan and that great flexibility would be necessary. It also became clear that creativity, political savvy, and diplomacy would be requirements for service as a liaison.

Seven focus areas, fashioned from the University of Connecticut list [24] and the pre-program liaison survey (Appendix B), have been identified for all library liaisons: communication, collection development, education, user services, information access, liaison development, and program evaluation. Possible liaison activities for each of these focus areas are presented in Appendix C. These focus areas are not considered a supervisor's checklist to evaluate the liaisons' activities or performance, but instead as guidelines to provide structure to the program without insisting all liaisons be identical. The activities are general enough to apply to all HSC CDUs and yet specific enough to provide some structure and consistency among liaisons. Although these are goals that liaisons should strive to meet, liaison success in each depends not only on the liaison's efforts but also on the varying needs of the CDUs, the acceptance of liaisons into the CDU, and the CDUs' abilities to deal with the liaisons.

In planning the liaison forum, the work group recognized the value of liaisons and other staff learning from each other about what works and does not work and about the political and cultural realities of the CDUs. The struggle for the work group was to find a timely yet effective approach to sharing information and experiences.